Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-mwwwr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-09T16:57:21.377Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - Cognitive Load in Learning with Multiple Representations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Holger Horz  and
Wolfgang Schnotz
Edited by
Jan L. Plass ,
Roxana Moreno  and
Roland Brünken
Holger Horz
Affiliation:
University of Applied Sciences, Northwestern Switzerland
Wolfgang Schnotz
Affiliation:
University of Koblenz-Landau
Jan L. Plass
Affiliation:
New York University
Roxana Moreno
Affiliation:
University of New Mexico
Roland Brünken
Affiliation:
Universität des Saarlandes, Saarbrücken, Germany
Get access

Summary

Technological innovations have led to important changes in teaching and learning during the last decade. Advances in computer technology have enabled the development of flexible learning arrangements, Web-based collaboration, and a broad range of multimedia learning environments. Multimedia allows the combination of different presentation formats, such as pictures, animations, text, or music in flexible ways via different sensory modalities. Media designers often assume that multimedia allows for a better adaptation of instruction to the learners' needs and preferences. Multimedia is also expected to motivate learners, thus increasing their invested cognitive effort, which in turn should result in better learning.

A major topic in the field of learning and instruction is how multimedia instruction interacts with the human cognitive architecture. Mayer (2001, 2005) as well as Schnotz (2001, 2005; Schnotz & Bannert, 2003) have developed theoretical models of multimedia learning that address this issue. Both models aim to explain what goes on in the mind of the learner when he or she learns from spoken or written texts with static or animated pictures. Both models share the assumption that the type and amount of presented information has to be adapted to the limitations of the cognitive system, especially those of working memory. The same assumption is at the core of Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) developed by Sweller and colleagues, which has become increasingly influential in instructional psychology during the last decade (Chandler & Sweller, 1991; Paas, Renkl, & Sweller, 2004; Paas & van Gog, 2006; Sweller, 1994, 2005; Sweller, van Merriënboer, & Paas, 1998).

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
Cognitive Load Theory , pp. 229 - 252
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In Spence, K. W. & Spence, J. T. (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: advances in research and theory (Vol. 2, pp. 742–775). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1971). The control of short-term memory. Scientific American, 225, 82–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baddeley, A. D. (1986).Working memory. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Baddeley, A. D. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255, 556–559.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baddeley, A. D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Science, 4, 417–423.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bornkessel, I. D., Fiebach, C. J., Friederici, A. D., & Schlesewsky, M. (2004). ‘Capacity’ reconsidered: Interindividual differences in language comprehension and individual alpha frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51, 278–279.Google ScholarPubMed
Cermak, L., & Craik, F. (1979). Levels of processing in human memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falkenhainer, B., Forbus, K. D., & Gentner, D. (1989/1990). The structure-mapping engine: Algorithm and examples. Artificial Intelligence, 41, 1–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentner, D. (1989). The mechanisms of analogical learning. In Vosniadou, S. & Ortony, A. (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 197–241). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1990). Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graesser, A. C., Millis, K. K., & Zwaan, R. A. (1997). Discourse comprehension. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 163–189.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harp, S., & Mayer, R. (1997). The role of interest in learning from scientific text and illustrations. On the distinction between emotional interest and cognitive interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 92–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horz, H., & Schnotz, W. (2008). Multimedia: How to combine language and visuals. Language at Work, 4, 43–50.Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, interference, and consciousness. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87, 329–354.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). Expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38, 23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, UK: University Press.Google Scholar
Koolstra, C. M. (2002). The pros and cons of dubbing and subtitling. European Journal of Communication, 17, 325–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kosslyn, S. M. (1994). Image and brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lowe, R. K. (1996). Background knowledge and the construction of a situational representation from a diagram. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 11, 377–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist, 32, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 43–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. E., & Sims, V. K. (1994). For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual coding theory of multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 444–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2000). A coherence effect in multimedia learning: The case for minimizing irrelevant sounds in the design of multimedia instructional messages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 117–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2002). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: When reading helps listening. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 156–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Interactive multimodal learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 309–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2004). Cognitive load theory: Instructional implications of the interaction between information structures and cognitive architecture. Instructional Science, 32, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paas, F., & Gog, T. (2006). Optimising worked example instruction: Different ways to increase germane cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 16, 87–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S. (1906). Prolegomena to an apology for pragmaticism. The Monist, 16, 492–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S. (1990). A theory of graph comprehension. In Freedle, R. (Ed.), Artificial intelligence and the future of testing (pp. 73–126). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Plass, J. L., Chun, D. M., Mayer, R. E., & Leutner, D. (2003). Cognitive load in reading a foreign language text with multimedia aids and the influence of verbal and spatial abilities. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 221–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plötzner, R., Bodemer, D., & Feuerlein, I. (2001). Facilitating the mental integration of multiple sources of information in multimedia learning environments. In Montgomerie, C. & Viteli, I. (Eds.), Proceedings of the World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp. 1501–1506). Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.Google Scholar
Roy, M., & Chi, M. T. H. (2005). The self-explanation principle in multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 271–286). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schnotz, W. (1993). On the relation between dual coding and mental models in graphics comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 3, 247–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schnotz, W. (1994). Aufbau von Wissensstrukturen. Weinheim, Germany: Beltz.Google Scholar
Schnotz, W. (2001). Sign systems, technologies, and the acquisition of knowledge. In Rouet, J. F., Levonen, J., & Biardeau, A. (Eds.), Multimedia learning? Cognitive and instructional issues (pp. 9–29). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Schnotz, W. (2005). An integrated model of multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 49–69). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13, 141–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schnotz, W., & Kürschner, C. (2007). A reconsideration of cognitive load theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 469–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seufert, T., & Brünken, R. (2006). Cognitive load and the format of instructional aids for coherence formation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 321–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seufert, T., Jänen, I., & Brünken, R. (2007). The impact of intrinsic cognitive load on the effectiveness of graphical help for coherence formation. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1055–1071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepard, R. N. (1984). Ecological constraints on internal representations: Resonant kinematics of perceiving, thinking, and dreaming. Psychological Review, 91, 417–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snow, R. E. (1989). Aptitude-treatment interaction as a framework for research on individual differences in learning. In Ackerman, P. L., Sternberg, R. J., & Glaser, R. (Eds.), Learning and individual differences: Advances in theory and research (pp. 13–59). New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas. Camberwell, Australia: ACER Press.Google Scholar
Sweller, J. (2002). Visualisation and instructional design. In Ploetzner, R. (Ed.), Proceedings of the International Workshop on Dynamic Visualizations and Learning (pp. 1501–1510). Tübingen, Germany: Knowledge Media Research Center.Google Scholar
Sweller, J. (2005). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 19–30). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12(3), 185–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweller, J., Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullman, S. (1984). Visual routines. Cognition, 18, 97–159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Weaver III, C. A., Mannes, S., & Fletcher, C. R. (Eds.). (1995).Discourse comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Wertheimer, M. (1938). Laws of organization in perceptual forms in a source book for Gestalt psychology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Winn, W. D. (1994). Contributions of perceptual and cognitive processes to the comprehension of graphics. In Schnotz, W. & Kulhavy, R. (Eds.), Comprehension of graphics (pp. 3–27). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×